Зображення сторінки
[ocr errors][merged small]

ferent. The malady may be the same, but the internal resources to vanquish it will greatly vary.”

Failing to perceive this, outraged society sometimes crushes the man with the criminal, or fosters the criminal with sentimentalism lavished upon the man. Prison officers, seeing only the criminal, constantly antagonizing him, conserve not the man until manliness from disuse dies out, while the criminal by the activity of opposition thrives and becomes strong. These diverse qualities, differently combined, discoverable in every criminal, are of necessity to be treated in conjunction: to repress the one and develop the other is the process of reformation; evil cannot be cured with evil; not until evil is overcome of good is any man reformed. To discern the one from the other in the same individual requires a competent, thoughtful, interested mind constantly in contact with criminals; and when this personal work is properly done by the chief officer of a prison, he will be as accessible to all as is the principal of a school or manager of a manufactory. Then will better results be wrought, and vain will be the search for neglect and cruelty often publicly charged and investigated.

Since imprisonment is for protection, the disciplinary management should be not punitive but remedial; prison punishments for correction only, never for retribution, give perfection of discipline in proportion to the wisdom and skill of the governors. Legislative restrictions and public accusations, revealing as they do a lack of confidence, often necessitate severities that would not otherwise be required. The limits of vested authority in this matter must be broad: good discipline means the voluntary cheerful obedience of prisoners with the least of punishments. The favorable conditions for it are :

First.- Power vested in the managers.
Second.-Power wisely used for remedial ends alone.
Third.-Power, in action, closely scrutinized.

The demagogic demand for reform in the industrial employment of prisoners does not, judging from the reasons publicly given, entitle it to space here for discussion. That prisoners confined under sentence must be employed, nobody will deny; their employment mainly at mechanical pursuits is a necessity if they are to be reclaimed, and also almost a custodial disciplinary and pecuniary necessity if irreclaimable. If, then, prisoners are to be employed, and at mechanical work, it matters little,


as prisons now are, whether it be by the contract system or on the public account plan. The latter may be made more favorable to reformation in prisons where that object is rationally sought. There is no positive difference as relates to labor and mercantile competition. The amount of income to be derived by the State will be greater or less from either system, according to circumstances; the proportion of income does not inhere in either. Under classification, as previously described, the industries of the incorrigible division would be mainly for production of income, and naturally on the contract system, though not necessarily so. The real incorrigibles constitute less than one-half of the prisoners of the State, so that there would be at once a diminution of convict contract labor equal to full fifty per cent. of the whole, which, with wise selection of industries for them, ought, when they are earning their own subsistence, as they could easily do, to satisfy all who now sincerely oppose the convict contract system.

The susceptible class should and would be employed at a greater variety of trades, including some of the higher mechanic arts; employed on public account or under a modified form of contract, as by the piece or process, or on the principle of partitioning the profits of each separate industry between the State and expert managers, whose office would mainly be to prepare the prisoners for success in business when released. This last is the really needed reform in prison industries, namely: that the purpose shall be to place the prisoner on release in such a position in society as he would or should have filled had he refrained from crime and been a good citizen. That it were better for all if the criminal had found active, honorable place in legitimate industry, all must admit; it follows, then, that it is best for all that he be fitted while imprisoned for such place. No fair-minded man, manufacturer, mechanic, or laborer, will object to such employment for such an end. To classify and employ prisoners in this way will go far toward settling the difficulties that now environ the prison labor question.

Yet another reform is needed. It is in the ministrations of religion to prisoners. Reform its partisanship; it is too often factitious or feeble, and is fragmentary. The religious influencing of prisoners must be made a part of a unified system of their general treatment; it properly belongs to the educational function. Because the mass of criminals in prison are below the

point of development where ordinary religious influences can lodge, a preliminary preparation of cultivation is absolutely necessary: obstacles to the apprehension as well as reception of religious ideas and benign spiritual energies must be cleared away. The religious development of any people is dependent on varied social influences; the wise religious guide brings us to the recognition of religion in our practical life: so the teacher of religion to prisoners needs to harmonize his work with other departments of the prison administration, and adapt his instructions to the particular state and condition of the criminal. There is room for improvement in the time and manner of such min. istrations. A systematic course of teaching should supplement simple exhortation, and a steady pressure of truth and moral means with (rather than against) the industrial and purely educational efforts, should replace desultory and sentimental methods. The great mass of first offenders may be reformed, and but a small proportion of prisoners are irreclaimable when with right means and methods reclamation is really sought. Every reformatory prison should reproduce the conditions of free life as near as may be; the requirements of good citizenship should be enforced upon prisoners until they show their purpose and ability to comply with them when released.

There are, then, three classes of reforms to be brought about by these several familiar agencies: 1st, separate confinement in jails for all prisoners therein, the creating of a better public sense of the true purpose of imprisonment, and the removal of prisons from all partisan interference,—these to be brought about by agitation and suitable legislation ; 2d, the classification of prisoners, their education while in prison, and their complete rehabilitation when released, to be accomplished by the general governing administration of prisons with suitable legislation; 3d, the industrial and remedial treatment, with thorough preparatory industrial and moral training. Some who read this paper will live to see such a prison system generally adopted. Its feasibility is fully confirmed by the success of present experiments. With the reforms here named, crime will feel the force of repression, its recorded aggregate will diminish, or at least its present rank growth will be stayed.



Do we not all give ourselves needless anxiety by defining the province of art, and denouncing whatever will not fit into our definition, and by magnifying the difference between science and literature? These appear to be separate sources of trouble, but possibly they are not so remote from each other as may at first appear. Art, we are told, has to do with the emotions, and the emotions are as sharply distinguished from the intellect as are the various regions on a phrenologist's cast of the head. It is the duty of the painter, for instance, we are fond of saying, to represent the emotions by means of his brushes and pigments, and with that he is to stop. The same rule applies to literature. Yet, although a painter belongs to a profession that more, perhaps, than any other depends on tricks and rule of thumb, does he examine the emotions till he finds one unrepresented and proceed to illustrate that? Does a poet run over the work of his contemporaries until he notices that one passion, as, for example, jealousy, has been for some time neglected, and then try to fill up the the gap? Possibly this is the way Joanna Baillie wrote her plays, but then Joanna Baillie was not a poet.

Fortunately, the artist concerns himself very little about the province of art. The critics may define this as they please; he is inspired, not by their definitions, but by the tendency of the thought of his time. This is what makes him what he is. In other words, our painters and poets are what we make them. If we, the public, are vulgar and ignoble in our tastes and thoughts and actions, their work will be vulgar and ignoble, and it cannot be otherwise. Simply preaching to artists that their work should be grand and elevating can be of no more use than telling a number of convicts that they ought to be good. We may describe the province of art with the utmost fullness, but the painter draws his inspiration from the life about him,

VOL. CXXXVII.—NO. 320. 49

not from books on ästhetics; he reflects the sentiments of his time rather than the text-books.

It may be urged that the paintings of a man like Millet by no means represent with accuracy the gaudy materialism of the Second Empire, and that hence our statement falls to the ground. Yet Millet no more created the insight into the pathos of humble life which makes his pictures genuine than he created the poverty and misery which touch our hearts in his paintings. The history of literature in the last hundred years enables us to see the growth of interest in the pauper, just as in politics we see the spread of democracy, which is the expression in practical life of the same feeling. Society, we must remember, is but the resultant of all individual aims and actions; art and literature are two of the forms in which it leaves the record of its interests and enthusiasms, just as politics is its practical expression.

A study of the analogy between literature and art would be most interesting, but, if complete, it would carry us too far from our present discussion. Whatever period we might take for examination, we should find a similarity between the two; not necessarily an equality of value, but similarity of aims. Thus, at the present day, the delight of some contemporary bards in making over the past, in pretending to be Chaucer or an early Italian poet, finds its expression also in the pictures of some of the English artists. Urging them to take different views of the province of art would be to indulge in declamation. Yet the phenomenon of the neo-romanticism of the present day does not, as we all know, show that our whole society is abandoned to wailing and picturesque masquerade; it is merely a sign that a number of people possess a certain taste which the rest of us are too weak or too much divided by opposing counsels to® expel. These antics are but an eddy in the great movement of art and literature, which is as indifferent to the worship of the peacock and the lily as the great mass of voters are to old brocades. Poetry is not dead, in spite of the contemporary revival of euphuism, nor is painting a lost art because some painters turn their backs on the present and pretend to be somebody else.

If not all the work done now is marred by materialism or affectation, it is because a truer inspiration survives, which shuns materialism on the one hand and mock mediævalism on the other. The best thought is generally an exception; only at rare

« НазадПродовжити »